I always suggest new brake hoses because the ones on there are probably in need of replacement anyway. And getting the 2" longer ones doesn't hurt anything. Supposedly, you only need longer hoses if you go more than 2".

 

Fair enough, and I've been planning to replace mine. I just wanted to point out that the stock ones are long enough for a 2" lift in my experience. They don't even come close to stretching or being stressed like the ones on my Ford would have.

 

I have the Terrafirma stainless braided hoses and they are like 18" long with a 3" + lift with 10-12" shocks and a 3 link in the front. I changed the mounting brackets a bit but 2" longer hoses is all you will ever need. My point is that stock lines will work with your truck but if you havent changed the lines in over 100K I think you're over due.

235/85's vs stock = truck being a dog on the streets and an animal off road haha

 

I see what you did there...

We sometimes call our lab an ATD - all-terrain dog! When I get to rough sections of the trail I have her jump out and run along next to the rig so she won't get tossed around in the back. She's an animal off-road too, LOL.

 

235/85's vs stock = truck being a dog on the streets and an animal off road haha

So you are saying it degrades the on-street performance?

 

Larger tires always will. It's still acceptable in the 32" range but if you wanted stock street performance you'd need 4.10 gears. I can still hit freeway speeds by the end of the on-ramp without flooring it, and it cruises just fine.

 

You mean Taller?

I was under the impression that width was more of an issue than height. I do not really see the height as slowing it down, I may be mistaken though.

I know that excessive width will compromise/degrade a quick take-off. The width may be an advantage in certain conditions. But excessive width is just that much more mass to get into motion. And Increased surface area=Increased friction.

Not quite sure about the change in diameter. Savannah, what is the scientific answer?

 

Sorry I'm not Savannah, but it's mechanical advantage. You'll have less torque at the wheels. You're turning a longer lever from the short end. Width is a compounding issue because it adds rolling resistance and rotating mass.

 

I see, so the initial take-off would be affected then due to the increased height/longer lever arm.

I was just trying to drag Savannah into the discussion. I do appreciate your shared knowledge and experience.

I remember my Porsche 928 had such wide back tires that it seemed to be slow from a standing start but really held the corners unbelievably. It cornered like it was on rails.

I would think you may realize a slight increse in MPG with the taller profile, would you not?

It would be nice to have side by side comparisons of the differences between the 235/70, the 245/75,and the 235/85 to really see the differences.

Tires can be so vastly different and noone wants to buy a set then decide they should have gotten something else.

I remember when I had my 280ZX, I put a new set of Firestones on it and had repetive issues with that particularr tire. The dealer tried to resolve it initially, then basically gave me an attitude refusing to do anything further. I contacted the FireStone Headquarters and spoke with someone in their Customer Relations department and told them of the issue and the Manager's refusal to do anything further. They agreed to look into it. They basically sent me a letter to take in and get the entire set replaced with a different tire altogether at no further cost to me.

They even told me to go in and select the replacements, then give him the letter. He got so mad, raised a lot of hell and I told him if he had a problem, call the person on the letter. He did have a heated discussion with them, replaced the tires as directed even though he clearly did not want to. It's been so long ago that I do not even remember what the issue was, but he really got bent about it.

I laughed it off then asked him if he had a similar set that would fit my 73 Mustang. He was not amused in the least bit.

 

That's pretty funny.

This is true to a point, but these rigs are already geared too tall (lower numerical value, higher gearing) for their power to weight ratio. So only if you had excess power on tap would your comment be true. Say you a 460 big block with towing gears yet you planned on cruising at 75 MPH, then yes, larger diameter tires would improve fuel economy, assuming you didn't go so large that the benefits were negated by the extra wind resistance from a taller vehicle and other drags you would have.

In the case of larger tires, while the vehicle has less torque at the wheels, it still needs enough torque to overcome rolling resistance, drivetrain losses, and wind resistance. Somewhere there is an optimum ratio of torque available to torque required, exceed that ratio and gas mileage will suffer. When I went from 29s to 33s on my old Ford (302 V8), gas mileage dove from 14 MPG to 10. When I switched gears from 3.55s to 4.10s (equivalent of getting smaller tires) my mileage bounced back to 13-15. Everyone said 4.10s were towing gears and I'd be hurting on the freeway, not true with that engine and tire combination. And yes I was accounting for the speedometer difference in there as well...

I don't believe you will improve fuel economy in any real way with larger tires on a Disco. You have to give it more throttle to go anywhere, and more throttle to keep moving. With a more powerful engine the equation would be different.